ArticleScientific reports2026
Bilibili and TikTok as sources of information on atrophic gastritis and the quality of their content.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Short video platforms have emerged as a prominent source of health information, including content related to chronic atrophic gastritis (AG). However, the quality and reliability of AG-related content on these platforms have not been systematically assessed. We selected 100 AG-related videos from each of Bilibili and TikTok, collecting data on video characteristics, including uploader information, engagement metrics, and content. The Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN score (mDISCERN), and JAMA score were used to evaluate the videos. Statistical analyses were conducted to assess differences in quality across platforms, video sources, and video content. Despite a shorter median duration (97.50 s), TikTok videos achieved higher user engagement and statistically higher quality scores (p < 0.01) compared to Bilibili. Treatment was the most frequent topic on both platforms (80.0%). Although Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) physicians constituted the largest uploader group (57.5%), gastroenterologists produced content with the highest quality scores (median GQS: 4.00; mDISCERN: 4.00; JAMA: 3.00) and significantly greater engagement (p < 0.01). TikTok exhibited relatively higher user engagement and higher quality scores, though both platforms showed moderate overall quality and considerable potential for enhancement. To foster the spread of credible health information, we recommend strengthening content moderation, amplifying the visibility of authoritative medical creators, and enhancing public health literacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.